Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sybil Gibson Higley

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 19:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sybil Gibson Higley[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to assert notability by inheritance from Charles Fritz Juengling, but notability is not inherited. It relies almost exclusively on sources that are primary and not independent. The substantive claim to encyclopaedic notability is... elusive to say the least. A genealogist best known for contributions to the genealogy field, apparently, but in the end these contributions seem not to be significant enough to inspire independent discussion of the subject herself. Guy (Help!) 00:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails SCHOLAR, GNG. Genealogy contributions do not appear to cross the bar into "significance" required for notability. Library holdings do not indicate significance as an author sufficient to achieve notability-- Only a handful of libraries. Google scholar does not show significant cites. Sourcing for article does not show significant coverage sufficient for notability. Did not find anything at Gale. Unable to locate significant coverage. Dloh cierekim 01:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is some information on her work as a genealogist - and there are notable genealogists. I think the nominator's comment about being the aunt to Charles Fritz Juengling is entirely irrelevant since the article doesn't claim primary notability based on that. It would help if nominators could discuss the article and its content and not a fantasy version of the article in order to claim deletion via WP:NOTINHERITED which is WP:NOTPOLICY anyway. Let's focus on the article content and the notability guidelines. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Higley has made contributions to the genealogy field, including heading libraries, writing books and being used as a source over many years. Also, notability is independent of Charles Fritz Juengling. That is a small piece of info that was included in the family section, not using CFJ for notability. • Kbabej (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- GreenC 17:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.